Jai Prakash v Nidhi Electronics

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, DISTRICT NORTH-EAST

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, NAND NAGRI, DELHI

No.34/08

Sh. Jai Prakash,

r/o. G-4/186, Gali No. 12,

5th Pushta, Sonia Vihar

Delhi.                                                 :        Complainant.

Versus

M/s. Nidhi Electronics,

B-19, Mukhya Market,

Rama  Garden, Karawal Nagar,

Delhi-110094          .                                     :        Opposite Party-I

M/s. Adonis Electronics Pvt.Ltd.

A-19, B-1, Mohan Cooperative Ind.Estate,

Mathura Road, Badarpur,

New Delhi-44.                                     :        Opposite Party-II

M/s.Onida Electronics Co.Ltd.

A-19, B-1, Mohan Cooperative Ind.Estate,

Mathura Road, Badarpur,

New Delhi-44.                                     :        Opposite Party-III

Order

Mrs.Asha Kumar, Member

In a nut shell complainant purchased one TV (make Onida) Model 14 XSST vide receipt no. 589 dated 27.1.2005 for Rs.5800/- from OP-I.  On the same day complainant tried to start the TV but it was not started so a complaint was made  immediately to OP-II which is authorized service centre of OP-III.  The said complaint was attended by OP-II on 4.4.2005.  Thereafter so many complaints were made time to time and the last complaint was made on 10.12.2007 which was never attended by the OP-II.  Complainant also extended the warrantee period of the above said TV  under EWC scheme  and for the same he paid some amount (amount not mentioned) to the OP-II.

Page 1 of 3

Order was announced by Hon’ble District Forum on 16.12.2008.  An amount of Rs.1000/- towards compensation and Rs.500/- as litigation expenditures were awarded  in favour of the complainant.  The complainant was not satisfied with the amount of compensation of Rs.1000/- towards physical and mental harassment and Rs.500/- as cost of litigation awarded by District Forum vide impugned order dated 16.12.2008, for having sold a defective colour TV (Onida make) under EWC scheme of OP-II.

In this regard an appeal  was filed before Hon’ble State Commission.  It was admitted and direction was given to the District forum for deciding the case afresh for determining  the amount of compensation and cost of litigation.

Documents on record perused.

We have gone through the complaint and documents filed by him that shows TV (Onida make) Ch.No. 40/5760 Model 14 XSST for Rs.5800/- was never in smooth function.  Since from the starting it developed certain gliches which were although rectified some times but we can imagine complainant must had gone lot of mental agony and harassment.  In this regard, as per the direction of Hon’ble State Commission, we want to modify our previous order passed on 16.12.2008 in respect of compensation and cost of litigation.

Thus, under these circumstance, we are of the view that compensation as well as cost of litigation awarded to the complainant should be enhanced and we are of the view that if the compensation is increased Rs.5000/- instead of Rs.1000/- and cost of litigation is increased Rs.1000/- instead of Rs.500/- that will be reasonable compensation and cost of litigation in favour of the complainant, which will meet the end of justice.

Page 2 of 3

Thus we direct the OP-2 to pay Rs.5000/- compensation to the complainant for his physical harassment and mental agony as well as Rs.1000/- cost of litigation to the complainant.

The above orders should be complied within 60 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the OP shall invite odium u/s 25 & 27 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

A copy of this order be sent to the concerned quarters by registered post or be supplied free of cost, on demand.  File be consigned after compliance.

Announced ______   day of __________________, 2009.

(U.C.Tiwari)                            (Asha Kumar)

President                                Member

Page 3 of 3

Tags:

Leave a Reply